If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Mitt Romney set a new debate record last night - by lying 27 times in only 38 minutes   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 312
    More: Fail, Mitt Romney, fuel efficiency standards, Douglas Elmendorf, fuel economy in automobiles, National Federation of Independent Business  
•       •       •

5353 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 4:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



312 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-04 02:46:34 PM  
Meanwhile, the fact checkers in the media are already jizzing their pants today over the wealth of info they have to go over now, and it looks like the Obama camp is already pointing out the fact that he basically lied through his teeth the entire time.

Maybe I'm seeing it wrong here. But, perhaps this was Obama's game plan all along? Let Romney throw the kitchen sink at him, then point out how wrong he was later?
 
2012-10-04 02:50:43 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Meanwhile, the fact checkers in the media are already jizzing their pants today over the wealth of info they have to go over now, and it looks like the Obama camp is already pointing out the fact that he basically lied through his teeth the entire time.

Maybe I'm seeing it wrong here. But, perhaps this was Obama's game plan all along? Let Romney throw the kitchen sink at him, then point out how wrong he was later?


It makes me curious. Perhaps there are enough people who don't pay attention to the day-to-day news, but do watch the debate, that lying your ass off during the debate is fine, because lots of people won't ever watch the news after the debate to hear that you did so.

On the other hand, if they don't follow the news, how likely is it that they would know the debate was scheduled?
 
2012-10-04 02:52:08 PM  
Meanwhile, Obama set a new debate record for the number of times he inexplicably failed to even attempt to rebut or call bullshiat on an opponent's obvious lies.
 
2012-10-04 02:52:40 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But, perhaps this was Obama's game plan all along?


He kinda did the same thing in the 2008 debates.. Laid low the first go-round, let McCain throw some punches, then round 2 and 3 he cleaned John's clock.

In that case, I think Obama actually had respect for McCain, so it wasn't the utter evisceration that it could have been.

This time though, the gloves will be off completely for the second and third debates..  Mitt doesn't even respect himself enough to debate on his own campaign.
 
2012-10-04 02:54:03 PM  

Cyberluddite: Meanwhile, Obama set a new debate record for the number of times he inexplicably failed to even attempt to rebut or call bullshiat on an opponent's obvious lies.


True as well, and something I was disappointed to see. On the other hand though, I'm not sure how well it would have played if he sat there the whole time calling Romney out on each and every point he made. Sure, it would look/sound great to those of us here that are hyper-in tune with the campaigns, but the average voter would just see POTUS in a petty back and forth with the other guy.
 
2012-10-04 02:56:28 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Maybe I'm seeing it wrong here. But, perhaps this was Obama's game plan all along?


I think you're right. We'll see over the next couple of weeks, but I think we'll see some ads featuring Romney contradicting himself. Obama is already hammering him on the lying. Maybe it would have been more effective last night, but there are 2 more of these debates. Might be better to start slow and finish strong.
 
2012-10-04 02:58:26 PM  
I guess that's one definition of "winning"
 
2012-10-04 03:00:24 PM  
Classic rope-a-dope. Give the dope enough rope and let what is bound to happen happen.
 
2012-10-04 03:00:41 PM  

markie_farkie: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But, perhaps this was Obama's game plan all along?

He kinda did the same thing in the 2008 debates.. Laid low the first go-round, let McCain throw some punches, then round 2 and 3 he cleaned John's clock.

In that case, I think Obama actually had respect for McCain, so it wasn't the utter evisceration that it could have been.

This time though, the gloves will be off completely for the second and third debates..  Mitt doesn't even respect himself enough to debate on his own campaign.


Obama plays the long game. That's something you have to remember, especially when people panic and gloat over last night's debate. He wasn't throwing punches. He was getting ammunition while not giving Romney's campaign much of an opportunity to get their own.
 
2012-10-04 03:00:46 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: True as well, and something I was disappointed to see. On the other hand though, I'm not sure how well it would have played if he sat there the whole time calling Romney out on each and every point he made. Sure, it would look/sound great to those of us here that are hyper-in tune with the campaigns, but the average voter would just see POTUS in a petty back and forth with the other guy.


How about at least calling him out on the ones he kept repeating over and over and over--most notably, the "Obamacare cuts grandma's Medicare by $716 billion" thing he repeated a half-dozen times? Yeah, it may be bullshiat, but that doesn't matter if you repeat a lie enough times and don't get called on it. At this point, it might as well be true, because Obama didn't really deny it.
 
2012-10-04 03:14:28 PM  
Too bad the President didn't point out a single one of them.
 
2012-10-04 03:16:14 PM  

Cyberluddite: Grand_Moff_Joseph: True as well, and something I was disappointed to see. On the other hand though, I'm not sure how well it would have played if he sat there the whole time calling Romney out on each and every point he made. Sure, it would look/sound great to those of us here that are hyper-in tune with the campaigns, but the average voter would just see POTUS in a petty back and forth with the other guy.

How about at least calling him out on the ones he kept repeating over and over and over--most notably, the "Obamacare cuts grandma's Medicare by $716 billion" thing he repeated a half-dozen times? Yeah, it may be bullshiat, but that doesn't matter if you repeat a lie enough times and don't get called on it. At this point, it might as well be true, because Obama didn't really deny it.


That's the thing, Obama DID call him out on it and explained where that money was going and that it was beneficial for Medicare. Romney then ignored what Obama said, repeated the $716b line and added in that there was an unelected board that would be making your personal health care decisions. He covered lies with other lies.
 
2012-10-04 03:20:43 PM  

manwithplanx: Cyberluddite: Grand_Moff_Joseph: True as well, and something I was disappointed to see. On the other hand though, I'm not sure how well it would have played if he sat there the whole time calling Romney out on each and every point he made. Sure, it would look/sound great to those of us here that are hyper-in tune with the campaigns, but the average voter would just see POTUS in a petty back and forth with the other guy.

How about at least calling him out on the ones he kept repeating over and over and over--most notably, the "Obamacare cuts grandma's Medicare by $716 billion" thing he repeated a half-dozen times? Yeah, it may be bullshiat, but that doesn't matter if you repeat a lie enough times and don't get called on it. At this point, it might as well be true, because Obama didn't really deny it.

That's the thing, Obama DID call him out on it and explained where that money was going and that it was beneficial for Medicare. Romney then ignored what Obama said, repeated the $716b line and added in that there was an unelected board that would be making your personal health care decisions. He covered lies with other lies.



It's one of the problems I've always had with Oxford-style debates. You can win almost every time by repeating lies that sound good for the entire debate, and completely chucking reality out the window.
 
2012-10-04 03:23:03 PM  

GAT_00: Too bad the President didn't point out a single one of them.


I think that was his point. Let Mitt dig himself a hole, don't help him. I don't agree with it, he should've called him out on it.
 
2012-10-04 03:29:48 PM  

Introitus: GAT_00: Too bad the President didn't point out a single one of them.

I think that was his point. Let Mitt dig himself a hole, don't help him. I don't agree with it, he should've called him out on it.


I don't know. Instead of smacking his lies down then and there, he's leaving it up to the people to talk about them and debunk his bullshiat. The story now has legs.
 
2012-10-04 03:34:09 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Introitus: GAT_00: Too bad the President didn't point out a single one of them.

I think that was his point. Let Mitt dig himself a hole, don't help him. I don't agree with it, he should've called him out on it.

I don't know. Instead of smacking his lies down then and there, he's leaving it up to the people to talk about them and debunk his bullshiat. The story now has legs.


It is almost as if someone realized that a 24 hour news cycle wasn't suspended between debates.
 
2012-10-04 03:35:43 PM  

Sid_6.7:


On the other hand, if they don't follow the news, how likely is it that they would know the debate was scheduled?


Because they tuned in expecting to see The Voice, X Factor, So You Think You Can . . . etc.
 
2012-10-04 03:37:46 PM  
Only 27?
 
2012-10-04 03:42:30 PM  
People are surprised Obama's playing the long game? STILL?
 
2012-10-04 03:45:47 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Meanwhile, the fact checkers in the media are already jizzing their pants today over the wealth of info they have to go over now, and it looks like the Obama camp is already pointing out the fact that he basically lied through his teeth the entire time.

Maybe I'm seeing it wrong here. But, perhaps this was Obama's game plan all along? Let Romney throw the kitchen sink at him, then point out how wrong he was later?


markie_farkie: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But, perhaps this was Obama's game plan all along?

He kinda did the same thing in the 2008 debates.. Laid low the first go-round, let McCain throw some punches, then round 2 and 3 he cleaned John's clock.

In that case, I think Obama actually had respect for McCain, so it wasn't the utter evisceration that it could have been.

This time though, the gloves will be off completely for the second and third debates..  Mitt doesn't even respect himself enough to debate on his own campaign.


Introitus: GAT_00: Too bad the President didn't point out a single one of them.

I think that was his point. Let Mitt dig himself a hole, don't help him. I don't agree with it, he should've called him out on it.


Vodka Zombie: Introitus: GAT_00: Too bad the President didn't point out a single one of them.

I think that was his point. Let Mitt dig himself a hole, don't help him. I don't agree with it, he should've called him out on it.

I don't know. Instead of smacking his lies down then and there, he's leaving it up to the people to talk about them and debunk his bullshiat. The story now has legs.



Welp, theres the hope.

When's the change?
 
2012-10-04 03:46:53 PM  

mrshowrules: Vodka Zombie: Introitus: GAT_00: Too bad the President didn't point out a single one of them.

I think that was his point. Let Mitt dig himself a hole, don't help him. I don't agree with it, he should've called him out on it.

I don't know. Instead of smacking his lies down then and there, he's leaving it up to the people to talk about them and debunk his bullshiat. The story now has legs.

It is almost as if someone realized that a 24 hour news cycle wasn't suspended between debates.


So, last night I saw a somewhat disengaged Obama debate a somewhat spastic Romney. Outside of their general demeanor, I distinctly remember Big Bird, Obama liking "Obamacare" and $700 billion. Additionally, I remember Obama running long and Romney constantly interrupting to get the last word and coming across as a dick.

I accepted that Romney would likely be viewed as the clear "winner" of the debate-whatever that really means-and that the fact checking would start up and make a news cycle or two.

Today started off with Dead Big Bird memes all over. Really made that seem like a Romney fark up in the end. Pretty much unanimous "yeah, Romney pretty much left reality and/or lied on just about every subject and in every statement" while simultaneously acknowledging he "won" the debate.

As the day passes, more and more ridicule is poured on Romney's "win" and is starting to look closer to the end of the movie "Cars" with Obama more Lighning McQueen and Romney more the Green Douche.

In the end, Obama should have clearly and strongly refuted the Medicare nonsense. He should have pilloried Romney on his stupid tax plan and didn't. Maybe long-game, maybe just off-game. Who knows at this point (outside of his campaign)? I think he should have held a couple of points to kick Romney in the yambag over and repeated them, but he didn't do that either.

In a week we'll find out if, by "winning" the way he did, whether Romney put himself in a worse position than he was before. He's clearly established a debate performance standard he's going to have to maintain and this will be difficult for him. If he underperforms in the next one, he's going to get beaten mercilessly in the press.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-04 03:48:11 PM  
It doesn't matter. There comes a point when anyone who cares has already been turned off and more lies have no effect.
 
2012-10-04 03:50:20 PM  
In a row?
 
2012-10-04 03:50:32 PM  

ceebeecates4: Welp, theres the hope.

When's the change?



What are you babbling about? Obama's already using Romney's lies from last night in campaign ads. I don't know if that qualifies as "change" to a moran like yourself, but hey! Whatever.

Maybe you should just go back to eating the kitty litter or something.
 
2012-10-04 03:57:24 PM  
You know, I'm gonna vote for, campaign for and donate to the president, but you people making him sound like some evil genius are giving him too much credit.

I think he had an off night, and I think that he probably had more important things to do yesterday- like stop a war between Syria and NATO- than practice for a debate against a man he is going to beat like a middle age housewife in her 50 Shades of Gray fantasy.
 
2012-10-04 03:58:27 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But, perhaps this was Obama's game plan all along? Let Romney throw the kitchen sink at him, then point out how wrong he was later?


If so, it was a pretty farking dumb plan.
 
2012-10-04 03:59:57 PM  

what_now: I think he had an off night, and I think that he probably had more important things to do yesterday- like stop a war between Syria and NATO- than practice for a debate against a man he is going to beat like a middle age housewife in her 50 Shades of Gray fantasy.


This. Keeping us out of another war has got to be pretty taxing on a person.
 
2012-10-04 04:02:27 PM  

ceebeecates4: Welp, theres the hope.

When's the change?


WOW you should design bumper stickers
 
2012-10-04 04:03:03 PM  

manwithplanx: That's the thing, Obama DID call him out on it and explained where that money was going and that it was beneficial for Medicare.


Not an any coherent way that the average listener would understand--and even if they had, he let Romney repeat the lie over and over again without any response. He should've said something along the following, the very first time Romney said it:

Governor Romney, I can't believe you're standing here repeating this utter falsehood yet again. You need to stop doing that--we owe it to the American to have a debate based on facts, not one based on fabrications and false scare tactics. Here is the truth: That $716 billion figure you keep waving around does not represent any cut of a single dollar of benefits to any senior citizen on Medicare. What it does represent it a reduction in reimbursements to insurance companies and hospitals, which they voluntarily agreed to in consideration of the fact that the passage of Obamacare will greatly reduce their current costs of providing free health care to uninsured people who are unable to pay. It's a win-win-win--for the taxpayers, who will no longer have to pick up so much of the cost of paying for emergency health care for uninsured people, for insurance companies and health care providers who will no longer have to absorb the rest of those costs, and for the Medicare system, which will be strengthened and made more solvent by having its expenses reduced in an intelligent matter.

And you know what? Your own running mate, Paul Ryan, in his budget proposal, proposed keeping that $716 reduction in payments in place, even while advocating the repeal of the rest of Obamacare! The difference? While I use those savings to pay for health care for people who currently can't get or can't afford insurance, your running mate wants to use those savings to fund yet another tax cut that would mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans!! So it's more than a little hypocritcal for you to criticize me over something your campaign supports, just because my plan benefits people who need health care--mostly those "47 percenters" you seem to think are all freeloaders--rather than solely benefitting the rich. Shame on you.
 
2012-10-04 04:03:56 PM  

Vodka Zombie: ceebeecates4: Welp, theres the hope.

When's the change?


What are you babbling about? Obama's already using Romney's lies from last night in campaign ads. I don't know if that qualifies as "change" to a moran like yourself, but hey! Whatever.

Maybe you should just go back to eating the kitty litter or something.



For the past few months, the Obama campaign has been working hard to define Romney as an out-of-touch dishonest old white guy. At this point, demonstrating "his lies" is simply doubling down on the tactic that is already undergoing diminishing returns.

Besides, no matter the veraciy of what Romney said, he put Obama on the defensive. Initiative is important.

Also, your attitude sucks. Maybe stop drinking so much?
 
2012-10-04 04:05:26 PM  

what_now: You know, I'm gonna vote for, campaign for and donate to the president, but you people making him sound like some evil genius are giving him too much credit.

I think he had an off night, and I think that he probably had more important things to do yesterday- like stop a war between Syria and NATO- than practice for a debate against a man he is going to beat like a middle age housewife in her 50 Shades of Gray fantasy.


I really think that's it. The guy had a bad night. Given Citizen's United and the SuperPAC's I'm not donating this year, but as a voter in a swing state I'm sending in my early ballot today.

I would, however, donate my maximum the moment, on a live nationally televised debated, Obama turned to look at Mitt and say "That's a load of horseshiat and you know it Mitt."

I would donate the max in my name and my two kids name if he would just bluntly state the truth.
 
2012-10-04 04:06:36 PM  
A candidate lied? GTFO! Seriously? Holy shiat. This is shocking... SHOCKING!
 
2012-10-04 04:07:05 PM  
He did kind of remind me of the Martin Short's Nathan Thurm, Attorney character.
 
2012-10-04 04:08:01 PM  

what_now: You know, I'm gonna vote for, campaign for and donate to the president, but you people making him sound like some evil genius are giving him too much credit.

I think he had an off night, and I think that he probably had more important things to do yesterday- like stop a war between Syria and NATO- than practice for a debate against a man he is going to beat like a middle age housewife in her 50 Shades of Gray fantasy.


I kind of think that the build-up where everyone was talking about how Obama was gonna eviscerate Romney, or whatever, was pretty damaging to him (Obama). Romney didn't get rich by simply stumblebumbing his way into hapless situations where he suckered everyone; the guy is smart, and probably ruthless, and had plenty of time to prepare for this along with mountains of footage of himself showing exactly what not to do. The guy is just feckless and a poor fool on the campaign trail, but that's because he can't script human interactions. A debate is a completely scripted thing from start to finish and he was in his element: giving a business speech.]

I agree with you that Obama had an off night. The border patrol nonsense and Turkyria madness could not have helped.
 
2012-10-04 04:08:52 PM  

what_now: You know, I'm gonna vote for, campaign for and donate to the president, but you people making him sound like some evil genius are giving him too much credit.

I think he had an off night, and I think that he probably had more important things to do yesterday- like stop a war between Syria and NATO- than practice for a debate against a man he is going to beat like a middle age housewife in her 50 Shades of Gray fantasy.


I pretty much agree, and I don't think he really hurt himself too much. The more I think about it the more I think the debate will be fodder for SNL this week and Romney's interruptions, jokes about Big Bird, and Lehrer being completely useless will probably win the hour over Obama's rather boring policy discussions.
 
2012-10-04 04:16:09 PM  

dr_blasto: In a week we'll find out if, by "winning" the way he did, whether Romney put himself in a worse position than he was before. He's clearly established a debate performance standard he's going to have to maintain and this will be difficult for him. If he underperforms in the next one, he's going to get beaten mercilessly in the press.


Your whole post is about as complete as a summary as should ever be needed. Certainly nothing much beyond that will be retained in the collective memory.
 
2012-10-04 04:16:16 PM  
It was probably the altitude.
 
2012-10-04 04:20:43 PM  

Cyberluddite: Governor Romney, I can't believe you're standing here repeating this utter falsehood yet again. You need to stop doing that--we owe it to the American to have a debate based on facts, not one based on fabrications and false scare tactics. Here is the truth: That $716 billion figure you keep waving around does not represent any cut of a single dollar of benefits to any senior citizen on Medicare. What it does represent it a reduction in reimbursements to insurance companies and hospitals, which they voluntarily agreed to in consideration of the fact that the passage of Obamacare will greatly reduce their current costs of providing free health care to uninsured people who are unable to pay. It's a win-win-win--for the taxpayers, who will no longer have to pick up so much of the cost of paying for emergency health care for uninsured people, for insurance companies and health care providers who will no longer have to absorb the rest of those costs, and for the Medicare system, which will be strengthened and made more solvent by having its expenses reduced in an intelligent matter.

And you know what? Your own running mate, Paul Ryan, in his budget proposal, proposed keeping that $716 reduction in payments in place, even while advocating the repeal of the rest of Obamacare! The difference? While I use those savings to pay for health care for people who currently can't get or can't afford insurance, your running mate wants to use those savings to fund yet another tax cut that would mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans!! So it's more than a little hypocritcal for you to criticize me over something your campaign supports, just because my plan benefits people who need health care--mostly those "47 percenters" you seem to think are all freeloaders--rather than solely benefitting the rich. Shame on you.



Yeah, but if he said that, a lot of couples would not have had sex that night as jizz by the pantload would have been expressed across Democratic circles nationwide.
 
2012-10-04 04:20:55 PM  
Stopped reading at the second one since they only looked at tax rate reductions not the reduction of the deductions


If they are going to lie about what romney said they should put some effort into it
 
2012-10-04 04:22:25 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Meanwhile, the fact checkers in the media are already jizzing their pants today over the wealth of info they have to go over now, and it looks like the Obama camp is already pointing out the fact that he basically lied through his teeth the entire time.

Maybe I'm seeing it wrong here. But, perhaps this was Obama's game plan all along? Let Romney throw the kitchen sink at him, then point out how wrong he was later?


If that is 0bamas thinking then at least it would explain his disastrous foreign policy

No terrorism here, I'll just call it work place violence to piss them off
 
2012-10-04 04:23:09 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Stopped reading at the second one since they only looked at tax rate reductions not the reduction of the deductions


What are the deductions Romney is going to eliminate, and what's the cap on total deductions?
 
2012-10-04 04:23:23 PM  

GAT_00: Too bad the President didn't point out a single one of them.


wat

They went back-and-forth over "teh maff" in Mitt's "if we cut, there's more!" plan and went back-and-forth over the $716B. Obama didn't say "That's a farking lie, you farking liar," but he said everything but.
 
2012-10-04 04:23:23 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Stopped reading at the second one since they only looked at tax rate reductions not the reduction of the deductions


If they are going to lie about what romney said they should put some effort into it


Now THIS is irony.

/Apologize for quoting tenturds
 
2012-10-04 04:23:39 PM  
Regarding "rope-a-dope" and "long game", please stop embarrassing yourselves.

Last night was a clusterfark. And it's no surprise.

You'd look foolish too if you were up on stage trying to swat away something that had the consistency, friendliness, and fixed position of a swarm of bees.
 
2012-10-04 04:24:02 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Stopped reading at the second one since they only looked at tax rate reductions not the reduction of the deductions


If they are going to lie about what romney said they should put some effort into it


i am sure tenpounsds will deliver a list of romney's deduction reductions any time. Surely, he will deliver.
 
2012-10-04 04:24:08 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Classic rope-a-dope. Give the dope enough rope and let what is bound to happen happen.


Hmm.

That would indicate Obama will come out swinging in round 2. Let's hope so.
 
2012-10-04 04:24:55 PM  
romney's a lying liar and obama's words in the transcript are printed in red, like the words of Jesus.
 
2012-10-04 04:25:10 PM  

Aarontology: tenpoundsofcheese: Stopped reading at the second one since they only looked at tax rate reductions not the reduction of the deductions

What are the deductions Romney is going to eliminate, and what's the cap on total deductions?


I'm not even sure Romney knows. :P Can't flip-flop what you don't know.
 
2012-10-04 04:25:34 PM  
The strategy of the Rmoney/Rand campaign seems to be lie and say whatever the fark you need to, then have someone from your team come along and "clarify" what the candidate actually meant.

and no one calls them on this bullshiat.

I'm beginning to think this liberal media might be a conservative...lie....
 
2012-10-04 04:25:42 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Only 27?


They didn't include the offshore tax breaks that Romney IS well aware of.

Clinton and Obama went after the same thing in 2008

At issue is the U.S. tax code's treatment of profits earned by foreign subsidiaries of American corporations. Profits earned in the United States are subject to the 35% corporate tax. But multinational corporations can defer paying U.S. taxes on their overseas profits until they return them to the USA - transfers that often don't happen for years. General Electric, for example, has $62 billion in "undistributed earnings" parked offshore, according to recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Drug giant Pfizer boasts $60 billion. ExxonMobil has $56 billion.

"If you had two companies in Pittsburgh that both were going to expand capacity and create 100 jobs, our tax code puts the company who chooses to put the plant in Pittsburgh at a competitive disadvantage over the company that chooses to move to a tax haven," says former White House economist Gene Sperling, a Clinton adviser.
 
Displayed 50 of 312 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report